Once upon a time, I had assumed today's topic – the separation between church and state – was fairly well understood among those in my congregation and in our religious movement nationally. After all, since 1963, we Unitarian Universalists have passed no fewer than five general resolutions at our General Assemblies on the topic. However, I have discovered over the last six months that there is not so great a homogeneity of perspectives among Unitarian Universalists as I expected, and hence this sermon. I still fear that I may in large part be preaching to the choir, so to speak, and that most if not all listeners will already agree with my point of view. Hopefully I will not bore you with the history contained in this issue, for I believe it is necessary to have a fairly good understanding from the places from which we have come. The philosopher George Santayana was correct when he wrote that those who do not remember their history are condemned to repeat it, and I fear we are approaching that time here in America.

Before America was settled in the 1600s, many of the countries in Europe had state churches – churches which were paid for and in some cases run by the national governments. In Germany, the Lutheran church received and still does receive funding from the German government. In England, the Church of England received its funding from the government. In still other countries, the Catholic Church received funding. There was little to no separation between church and state. As a result, the minority or dissenting religions were often at a severe disadvantage – receiving no funding from the government. Frequently, they were also persecuted by the government for not joining in with the prevalent religious beliefs.

When the Pilgrims landed in Massachusetts, they founded what was in essence the puritan church – which over time became known as the Congregational Church. The parish of each church composed the entire town. If you lived in a town, you were a resident of the parish, although not necessarily a member of the church. When you paid your taxes, however, some of your money went to support the parish church. Moneys to run the church came from the town.

Indeed, initially many of the early colonists in the 1600s lived in essence in theocracies, with people of only one religious persuasion welcome in the community. Thus, when one reads some of the early records of Puritan Connecticut, for example, one finds Quakers prosecuted under the law. Elsewhere, one can find evidence of Baptists being persecuted. New England was predominantly Congregationalist, with the exception of Rhode Island. Pennsylvania was known for its Quakers, but it also tolerated others.

In the late 1600s and early 1700s, toleration began to increase so that members of other faiths, including the Baptists, Quakers, and Episcopalians were no longer prosecuted and punished under the law. However, a sharp distinction was made between what a person believed and what their tax dollars were expended upon. In 1692 a law was passed in Massachusetts which provided that every town should maintain an "able, learned and orthodox" minister, supported by taxation. Over time this was modified so that Quakers, Baptists, and Episcopalians were exempted from supporting Congregational ministers, instead giving an equal amount to their own ministers, those who were indifferent or too few to establish their own church ended up supporting the Congregationalist church. While one did not have to listen to any clergymen, one did have to support them financially.

By the time of the Revolutionary War, most of America's population did not belong to churches. Actually, only about 15% of the population were church members, a rather surprisingly low percentage, given our usual understanding of religion in America. Yet, paradoxically, many of the state constitutions referenced God and the relationship of Christianity to civil order. For example, the Massachusetts constitution of 1780 stated in Article 2 "It is the duty of all men in society publicly and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe."

Two states, however, differed sharply from the majority: Rhode Island and Virginia. Rhode Island's founder, Roger Williams, had written as early as 1644 "When they have opened a gap in the …wall of separation between the Garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God has ever … made his Garden a Wildernesse." Rhode Island welcomed all immigrants, regardless of their religious belief.

In Virginia, James Madison in 1786 pushed through the Virginia General Assembly "A Statute for Religious Freedom" written earlier by Thomas Jefferson in 1779. This statute was the first statute in Western history to outlaw religious persecution. That statute was sharply debated and fought over before its passage.

When it comes to our nation’s Constitution, there is only one reference to religion in it – Article 6, which states "…no religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." What is less well known is that there was tremendous debate at the time over this godless Constitution. The document was attacked by those who feared a secular state. The "no religious Test" clause received the brunt of the criticism in the debates, with one delegate from Massachusetts stating that America’s leaders must believe in God and Jesus Christ. A good number of state delegates feared that the lack of a religious test would open the country up to the control of Jews, Catholics, Quakers, or even atheists. Then as now some citizens feared the pagan influence.

A number of attempts were made to change the constitution, to make it more Christian before it was passed, either by changing the preamble or the no religious test clause. But in the end, all such efforts failed, and the present Constitution was passed, creating, in essence, a secular government. A few years later, the Bill of Rights was also passed. Here in the First Amendment and in its first clause one reads

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof. . ."

As early as 1788, even before the Constitution was amended, court cases began contesting the payment of state and town taxes in which a portion of the revenue went to the church. In the late 1700s, the Universalists won a case, I believe in Maine, in which they would not have to pay that portion of their taxes which went to the Congregationalists. Similar cases began to arise in Massachusetts, where finally in 1833, in the Dedham case, disestablishment of the church from the state finally occurred. I might add that Massachusetts was the last state in the Union to have a state funded church.

Of course, the Unitarians were in the middle of this fray. Would we have it any differently? Very briefly, the church’s congregation had called a Unitarian minister to its pulpit. The parish (the residents of the entire town) refused to pay the minister, for he was not trinitarian. The parish claimed they owned the assets of the church and were the ones to make such decisions. The dispute went to the courts. In the resulting decision, the Unitarian congregation of actual church members won the assets of the church, but funding of the church by the town ceased. Indeed, it ceased throughout the state, because the perception was at that time that the liberal Unitarians were benefiting from it more than the conservative Congregationalists. From that time onward, town or parish government was differentiated from church membership and government. The members of the church, not the residents in the parish, determined how their assets should be utilized and spent, but these same members became totally responsible for raising the church assets.

A few quotations, admittedly taken out of context, might help give one a sense of the times two centuries ago: From James Madison in 1790 – "The general government is proscribed from the interfering, in any manner whatsoever, in matters respecting religion." [1790, Papers, 13:16.]

Unitarian John Adams, in 1797, signed a treaty containing these words: "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." [Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams (the original language is by Joel Barlow, U.S. Consul)]

Thomas Jefferson in 1802 - "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus, building a wall of separation between Church and State." [letter to the Danbury Baptist Association]

Again from Madison, 1811, "The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution…" [veto message, February 28, 1811.
Madison vetoed a bill granting public lands to a Baptist Church in Mississippi Territory. Quoted from Albert J. Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom.]

Later, Andrew Jackson, in 1832, wrote - "Religion….enjoys in this country…complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government," [statement refusing to proclaim a national day of fasting and prayer, Correspondence 4:447.]
 

Clearly, for better or worse, the secularists had won the debate in the forming of our country. Religion was to be separate from government.

The more fervent evangelicals, however, did not give up. Eighty to 90 years later, as early as 1864, the phrase "In God We Trust" appeared on currency issued by the U.S. Mint. It appeared then by an act of Congress on the short lived 2 cent coin. The phrase reappeared in 1908 and was placed by Congress on gold coins, silver dollars, quarters, and half dollars. Then in 1909, it appeared on the one cent penny, and on dimes it has appeared since 1916. Finally, in 1955, President Eisenhower signed a law making it mandatory on all U.S. money.

One year later, in 1956, the motto of the United States, which from the beginning of our country had been "E Pluribus Unum," was changed to "In God We Trust." Clearly this was more a change in veneer of the wall than an actual substantiative change. Yet, such a change has been cited in years since to support a different interpretation of history.

Turning to another area of the wall which often is mentioned, we look next at the Pledge of Allegiance. The pledge was written in August of 1892 by the socially liberal Baptist minister Francis Bellamy. The original wording was
 

I pledge allegiance to my flag and the Republic for
which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty
and justice for all.

As such, it was clearly a secular oath of devotion, and its author viewed the primary recipient of allegiance to be that of the Republic.

In 1923 and 1924, the words "my flag" were changed to "the flag of the United States of America." Twenty-five years later, the Roman Catholic based Knights of Columbus undertook a successful campaign to have Congress insert the words "under God" in the pledge, which Congress did in 1954. Again, a seemingly minor, insubstantial change in wording, affecting only the veneer of the wall. However, to the extent the pledge is recited daily in many school classrooms, the introduction of theism into the school day represents a breach of that wall.

In contrast to these breaches, beginning in 1947, a series of court challenges and decisions arose taking religion increasingly out of public life. For example, officially led prayer and bible reading, common in some states such as New York, was taken out of the public schools upon the court win by atheist Madelyn Murry O’Hare. Posting of the Ten Commandments on public property was outlawed, as were the religious aspects of holiday displays on public property, such as Nativity and Creche Scenes. With each such win, devout evangelicals, often Christian in faith, mourned and decried their loss.

Sometime, possibly in the 1980’s, social service agencies of major religious organizations began to receive some public funding for their projects. Often, they first had to set up a separate tax exempt 501( c ).3 organization to qualify for the funding. One such example is the Astor Home for Children, where my wife Athena works. The home is an intensive therapeutic residence, with an on-site school, for severely disturbed children. It is virtually totally tax supported via Medicaid, NY Department of Social Service, and NY State Education Department payments – yet the program is administered by and part of Catholic Charities. Similar funding issues exist for other major Protestant and Jewish denominations which have large charitable organizations.

More recently, as I am sure you all know, Christian conservatives and evangelicals have been pushing for prayer in the public schools, the use of vouchers for parochial education, the posting of the Ten Commandments in public places, including schools, and the financial support for religious missions. This latter area, of financial support to missions, promises to be an increasingly divisive debate with President Bush’s creation of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. I believe President Bush’s intention was honorable but poorly thought out. Ironically, some of the same evangelicals who had been in favor of government funding are now backpedaling.

The Rev. Pat Robertson, for example, founder of the Christian Coalition, has recently stated that it is "appalling" that non-traditional religions can also qualify for federal funding. He noted that "This thing could be a real Pandora’s box, and what seems to be such a great initiative can rise up to bite the organizations as well as the federal government." Well Pat, it is about time you realized that.

I believe that a look at the history clearly shows a more than 200 year old, ongoing tension and interplay between those who wish to limit government to the secular domain and those who wish to strengthen religion with the government’s power and prestige.

What I find most ironic is the apparent misreading of sociology by those who advocate a blending of government and religion. Thomas Jefferson firmly believed that by making a secular government, both the state and religion would be empowered and invigorated. As he wrote in his Notes on Virginia, he believed that disestablishment of the church would "oblige its ministers to be industrious [and] exemplary." I cannot help but to note that today, Europeans are notably less involved in church and religion than are American citizens. In Europe, the church remains state supported, and as a result, there is apparently less effort exerted, both by clergy and laity. I believe Jefferson was correct. Government establishment of religion undermines the religion it is trying to help and support. Go to Europe, and look at their attendance.

Returning to Bush’s Office of Faith Based Initiatives, one of the most successful components of faith based missions in prisons and in substance abuse clinics is the transformative power of conversions. That is what drives such programs. Oddly enough, the federal office cannot support such programs, because of their emphasis upon conversion. To receive funding, that must be downplayed and/or stripped away from the program. To me, it is a built in contradiction which guts the effectiveness of the programs.

There is still another problem with this newly created office. Why should someone who is a devout Baptist have their tax dollars go to support someone else’s Presbyterian mission? Tempers are likely to rise even more when Christian dollars end up funding some Asian religious mission such as those run by the Hare Krishnas. Already a Jewish group has lobbied President Bush’s Office of Faith Based Initiatives against the Nation of Islam receiving any funding. Why? Because of the anti-Semitism of its leader, Louis Farrakan.

Who is to make the determination which religious mission receives funding, and based upon what criteria? Point in fact, the Nation of Islam has a reputation on the streets of enjoying a high success rate in turning African American prisoners into productive members of society. Success rate is supposedly one of the main criteria to be utilized by the federal office, so how can they be legitimately denied funding?

Still another problem that I can foresee with this office: To what extent, over time, will funding shape the mission and prophetic voice of the various churches it supports? At first, I am sure that it will not shape programs at all. But after several years, mission program directors will have a natural tendency to want to go to where the money is. One may become fearful of speaking out too forcefully, for one might lose funding as punishment. Gradually, over time, one’s original religious mission may very easily become compromised.

Those churches which seem most interested in the funding are the inner-city, minority churches who already have social service programs for their members and neighborhoods. They are desperate for money and welcome Bush’s proposal as a Godsend. I fear for them, though, that they not be manipulated several years from now.

I should add that seemingly this whole discussion is playing out as a schism between class and race and not so much one of theology. Many Protestant, non-minority ministers are opposed to Bush’s plan, while the preponderance of those in favor of the plan are minority ministers working with the poor. These variables need to be watched carefully in the future.

My colleague, the Rev. Dr. Forest Church, minister of All Soul’s Unitarian Church in Manhattan, raised still another issue in an Op Ed article in the New York Times several months ago. He raised the question of trust and honesty. By channeling large amounts of federal moneys into church based programs, either a bureaucratic layer of federal administrators will have to be placed on top of the church administration, or we will have to trust the churches to do as they say they are going to do. We will have to trust that they will not try to convert. We will have to believe that they aren’t proselytizing with our tax dollars. Never mind other people. Can we even trust ourselves not to do it? Forest, to his credit, decided that All Soul’s would not be applying for any federal funds.

Turning to another area in the wall which is frequently under attack, proponents of prayer in schools often are taken aback when confronted with the possibility that a wiccan group might wish to lead the school in prayers to the Goddess. They then may act as if such is not a real religion. But once again, who is to determine what is a true religion and what is not. What about those teenagers who profess to be Satanists. Do they have a right to lead prayers in school? Do we as citizens want to give that type of power and authority to anyone – to determine what is a "real" religion?

I know I don’t.

While Pat Robertson belatedly recognized that the Office of Faith Based Initiatives can be a true Pandora’s box; he and others like him have failed to realize that taking down the wall of separation between church and state in any area can open Pandora’s box, resulting in serious harm to our Republic, to religion, and to the religious freedoms of its citizenry.

So what can we as Unitarian Universalists do? We are a small religious movement in America. That may be true, but we also have a history of leadership in looking out for our nation’s welfare. Our list of prominent names contains many national leaders, originators of various programs and social movements. Once again, I believe it is time for our leadership, as promoters and defenders of Jefferson’s wall. At the local level, I would invite you to be vocal. Consider speaking out at public meetings where the wall is being nibbled away….write a letter to the editor in your local newspaper…..write to your congressmen…..be persuasive and compassionate. And don’t fail to mention your faith community. Be proud to note that you are a Unitarian Universalist.

Still another possible avenue would be to join with other concerned religious groups, such as some of the more liberal Protestant and Jewish congregations, and sponsor public forums. Invite minority church leadership. Hear their concerns and perspectives, and then share yours. Discuss the issues honestly, and in the process, help educate each other.

I know that 20 some years ago, when I heard the Rev. Jerry Falwell attack the influences of the European Enlightenment, it was a wake-up call for me, for the Enlightenment provided much of the philosophical foundation of our nation’s core values. So too is the current attack on secular government. Its purpose is to transform our government – to make it theocratic. And historically, nearly every theocratic government has resulted in religious oppression of those who differ with the majority. Look at early Christian American history, in which dissenters from the prevailing faith were prosecuted and at times executed. Look at Christian European history. Look at the laws in the Islamic world in the present day.

Let us maintain our Wall of separation forever, no matter how much good the breaching now promises. I believe the price will be too great in the end.

Return to Sermons menu.